OLEO vs KCSO Findings Disagreements: Dishonesty and Excessive Force Sustained by OLEO After KCSO Exonerated
Case 1: IIU2024-243 (memo Feb 21, 2025)
A KCSO detective was investigating something that required reviewing video of a call between Subject Deputy 1 and Subject Deputy 2. Subject Deputy 1 attempted to prevent the detective from accessing that video.
| Allegation | KCSO Commander | OLEO recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Subject Deputy 1: Dishonesty (GOM 3.00.015(1)(a)) | Unfounded | Sustained |
| Subject Deputy 1: Courtesy/Disrespect (GOM 3.00.015(2)(i)) | Unfounded | Unfounded |
| Subject Deputy 2: Courtesy/Disrespect | Sustained | Sustained |
OLEO’s analysis: there is clear and convincing evidence that Subject Deputy 1 attempted to conceal facts associated with law enforcement business, in violation of the General Orders Manual prohibition on dishonesty.
Case 2: IIU2025-206 (memo Jan 16, 2026)
On August 7, 2025, a complainant entered the King County Courthouse at 516 3rd Ave, Seattle. The incident involved two subject employees and an altercation.
| Allegation | KCSO Commander | OLEO recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Subject Employee 1: Otherwise fails to meet standards | Exonerated | Exonerated |
| Subject Employee 2: Otherwise fails to meet standards | Exonerated | Sustained |
| Subject Employee 2: Excessive use of force | Exonerated | Sustained |
OLEO’s analysis of Subject Employee 2: the decision to close the distance to within inches and then push the complainant was “not reasonable or necessary and was therefore excessive.” OLEO applied the clear-and- convincing evidence standard required by KCSO policy.
The structural pattern
Both memos follow the same architecture: KCSO’s internal commander finds in favor of the deputy or against the lower allegation tier; OLEO, reviewing the same evidence, reaches a more severe finding. Both memos are published as public PDFs and indexed on OLEO’s investigation findings page. The substantive disagreement is on the record. The disciplinary outcome, however, remains with the Sheriff.
Per OLEO’s own past statements, this gap between certification authority and disciplinary authority has been a structural complaint for years. The 2021 PubliCola reporting noted OLEO declined to certify only 12 of 116 investigations and that even non-certification carries “little practical impact.” A 2024 IIU annual report disclosed sustained rates and discipline distributions but does not disclose, at any case level, how often OLEO’s recommended dispositions differ from KCSO’s final dispositions.
What’s missing
- A systematic OLEO accounting of every disposition disagreement over the past 24 months, with final KCSO outcomes alongside.
- Statistics on whether KCSO ever adopts OLEO’s recommended Sustained findings when the Commander initially recommended Exonerated or Unfounded.
- Whether either of these specific cases has reached a final disposition and what it is.
Pairs with
- KC-2026-009 (OLEO Traffic Enforcement non-adoption)
- KC-2026-010 (KCSO IIU 2024 Annual Report)
- 2026 Inspector General proposal case